A new productivity commission inquiry to delve into the benefits and costs of parental leave; a report finds women still underpaid.
Paid parental leave back on the agenda
Paid parental leave is firmly back on the political agenda with the government referring the issue to the productivity commission, and the Australian Democrats reintroducing the Workplace Relations (Guaranteeing Paid Maternity Leave) Amendment Bill 2007.
The government has asked the productivity commission to investigate ways in which the government can provide improved support to parents of newborn babies.
The commission will look at the economic and social costs, as well as the benefits, of paid maternity, paternity and parental leave. It will also explore existing employer provision of paid maternity, paternity and parental leave.
The commission's terms of reference include identifying paid maternity, paternity and parental leave models that could be used in the Australian context, and assessing those models for their potential impact on: the financial and regulatory cost and benefits on small and medium sized businesses; the employment of women, women's work-force participation and earnings, and the workforce participation of both parents more generally; work/family preferences of both parents in the first two years after the child's birth; the post-birth health of the mother; the development of young children, including the particular development needs of newborns in their first two years; and relieving the financial pressures on families.
The commission will also assess the cost effectiveness of these models, and their interaction with the social security and family assistance systems.
The commission is also to assess the impact of potential models across the full range of employment forms, such as self-employed, farmers, shift workers, and the efficiency of government policies to facilitate their provision and take-up.
The commission will report back in February 2009, after thorough examination of the matter, including public participation via meetings and submissions.
While the government had already flagged the productivity commission inquiry when the Democrats introduced their Bill, Senator Natasha Stott Despoja said that the party intended keeping legislative pressure on the government, noting that there had already been two extensive inquiries into paid maternity leave.
A full bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission has handed down a majority decision confirming Telstra's right to dismiss a worker who engaged in sexual relations with another employee after a work function.
The worker, who was employed by Telstra in one of its shops at Miranda, had sex with a colleague in a hotel room they were sharing with other co-workers. One of the co-workers complained that she had witnessed this, and following an investigation, the worker was dismissed.
The commission initially held that this dismissal was unfair. In particular, it ruled that Telstra did not have a valid reason for terminating the worker's employment because her conduct did not amount to sexual harassment, or if it did, it was only of the 'most indirect kind'. Based on these findings, it ordered reinstatement.
Telstra appealed, arguing that the commission should have found the dismissal was justified because the worker acted dishonestly when it carried out its investigation, rather than because she had engaged in sexual relations.
A majority of the full bench accepted Telstra's submissions and allowed the appeal. The majority found that the worker's dishonesty was a valid reason for her termination. In doing so, the senior deputy presidents held that the worker was compelled to answer truthfully even though the investigation concerned a personal matter. They also observed that the termination had been conducted in a fair and transparent manner and that the worker had been notified that this dishonesty was the reason for her dismissal.
Women undervalued in Top 200 companies
A report just released by the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency (EOWA) reveals that women at the top end of Australian business are not receiving equal pay for equal work.
The Gender Income Distribution of Top Earners in ASX 200 Companies report used pay data collected as part of the 2006 EOWA Australian Census of Women in Leadership.
The report examined the five most highly paid executives' earnings in the ASX 200.
The report found that women hold just 7 per cent of top earner positions in the ASX 200, and that female chief financial officers and chief operating officers earn half the wage of their male equivalents.
Female chief executive officers earn two-thirds the salary of their male counterparts.
The overall median pay for women is 58 per cent of men's. In 90 per cent of industry sectors the female median salary is less than the male median salary in the same sector.
Men are more likely to be top earners in both line and support roles. In support roles, where women are concentrated, they have less than a 50 per cent chance of being a top earner. In human resource positions, where there are more women, the pay gap is 43 per cent.
EOWA noted that ABS statistics show a 34.9 per cent pay gap between men's and women's average weekly earnings, and figures from Graduate Careers Australia show male graduates have a higher starting salary and receive salary increases at a greater rate than women. Also noted by EOWA was that top earners research shows that pay inequity exists at all levels of the workplace.
EOWA director Anna McPhee noted that earnings gaps 'reflect a number of obstacles that women still battle such as the undervaluation of women's skills, women's lower share of payments like overtime and bonuses, occupational and industrial segregation, lack of access to education and training, the impact of family responsibilities, the lack of mentors and champions, the prevalence of gender stereotypes, and in some cases outdated ways in which remuneration is calculated'.
The Australian Industrial Relations Commission has ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear a worker's unfair dismissal claim because he was dismissed for operational reasons, even though his former role was still being performed.
The commission held that the company had gone through a legitimate restructure, and noted that it was not for the commission to determine the fairness of employing someone else to perform the same work for a lower wage.
The worker had been employed by Priceline as a space planner. He was one of three workers performing this function. In November 2006, he was dismissed when the company's adverse financial position led to its operations being restructured. Another worker performing a similar role was also dismissed.
The worker brought an unfair dismissal claim. The commission initially declined to hear the claim on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction because the termination was for genuine operational reasons. A full bench overturned this finding on appeal, holding that the commissioner at first instance had not properly applied the operational reasons test. The matter was remitted back to a single commissioner.
At this second hearing the worker argued that the circumstances of his dismissal did not fit the genuine operational reasons exemption. In particular, he noted that his department had been reduced in number from three to two and submitted that the company had re-employed someone to perform substantially the same job for less pay. He claimed the real reason for his dismissal was the personal animosity that existed between him and one of his superiors.
In rejecting the worker's arguments, the commission noted that while the worker's dismissal was avoidable, this in itself did not overcome the genuine operational reasons exemption. The company had real and obvious reasons for wanting to restructure its operations, resulting in a reduction in the number of space planners from three to two and their lower pay. For the worker's argument to succeed the commission would have to be convinced that these considerations were not a factor in his dismissal.
